Message-ID: <20130519152240.GB7717@lukather>
Date:	Sun, 19 May 2013 17:22:40 +0200
From:	Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>
To:	Oliver Schinagl <oliver+list@...inagl.nl>
Cc:	arnd@...db.de, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	Oliver Schinagl <oliver@...inagl.nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Initial support for Allwinner's Security ID fuses

On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 07:19:43PM +0200, Oliver Schinagl wrote:
> On 05/17/13 23:18, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> >Hi Oliver,
> >
> >Le 17/05/2013 15:35, Oliver Schinagl a écrit :
> >>From: Oliver Schinagl <oliver@...inagl.nl>
> >>
> >>Allwinner has electric fuses (efuse) on their line of chips. This driver
> >>reads those fuses and exports them as a sysfs node. Also a symbol is exported
> >>for in-kernel useage.
> >>
> >>While initially these fuses are used to somewhat determin the chipID, these
> >>appear to be writeable by the user and thus can be used for other purpouses.
> >>For example storing a 128 bit root key, a unique serial number, which could
> >>then even be used as a MAC address.
> >>
> >>Because writing to e-fuses can be potentially dangerous, and are certainly
> >>not as often writable (if at all) as flash memory, these shouldn't be easily
> >>changeable, hence only a read-only mode. An offline tool to write the fuses
> >>is in the works.
> >>
> >>Currently supported are the following known chips:
> >>Allwinner sun4i (A10)
> >>Allwinner sun5i (A10s A13)
> >>Allwinner sun6i (A31, A31s)
> >>Allwinner sun7i (A20)
> >
> >Since I don't think those patches have been tested on sun6i/sun7i, and
> >that there's not even kernel support for those, maybe it's not worth
> >mentionning them?
> A31 is out in the wild, but haven't seen that functionality in, I
> have seen the register named and defined, just not used, so that
> could go until confirmed.
> 
> A20 has the same feature as we can see in the dumped sources. [0]

Yet, we can't even boot a mainline kernel, and this list will probably
need some update when new SoCs come out.

Anyway, it's not a big deal.

> 
> 
> >
> >>
> >>Signed-off-by: Oliver Schinagl <oliver@...inagl.nl>
> >>---
> >>  drivers/misc/eeprom/Kconfig     |  19 ++++
> >>  drivers/misc/eeprom/Makefile    |   1 +
> >>  drivers/misc/eeprom/sunxi_sid.c | 218 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>  3 files changed, 238 insertions(+)
> >>  create mode 100644 drivers/misc/eeprom/sunxi_sid.c
> >>
> >>diff --git a/drivers/misc/eeprom/Kconfig b/drivers/misc/eeprom/Kconfig
> >>index 04f2e1f..c9ddda5 100644
> >>--- a/drivers/misc/eeprom/Kconfig
> >>+++ b/drivers/misc/eeprom/Kconfig
> >>@@ -96,4 +96,23 @@ config EEPROM_DIGSY_MTC_CFG
> >>
> >>  	  If unsure, say N.
> >>
> >>+config EEPROM_SUNXI_SID
> >>+	tristate "Allwinner sunxi security ID support"
> >>+	depends on ARCH_SUNXI && SYSFS
> >>+	help
> >>+	  This is a driver for the 'security ID' available on various Allwinner
> >>+	  devices. Currently supported are:
> >>+		sun4i (A10)
> >>+		sun5i (A10s, A12, A13)
> >>+		sun6i (A31)
> >>+		sun7i (A20)
> >
> >Same things here.
> >
> >>+
> >>+	  Due to the potential risks involved with changing e-fuses,
> >>+	  this driver is read-only
> >>+
> >>+	  For more information visit http://linux-sunxi.org/SID
> >>+
> >>+	  This driver can also be built as a module. If so, the module
> >>+	  will be called sunxi_sid.
> >>+
> >>  endmenu
> >>diff --git a/drivers/misc/eeprom/Makefile b/drivers/misc/eeprom/Makefile
> >>index fc1e81d..9507aec 100644
> >>--- a/drivers/misc/eeprom/Makefile
> >>+++ b/drivers/misc/eeprom/Makefile
> >>@@ -4,4 +4,5 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_EEPROM_LEGACY)	+= eeprom.o
> >>  obj-$(CONFIG_EEPROM_MAX6875)	+= max6875.o
> >>  obj-$(CONFIG_EEPROM_93CX6)	+= eeprom_93cx6.o
> >>  obj-$(CONFIG_EEPROM_93XX46)	+= eeprom_93xx46.o
> >>+obj-$(CONFIG_EEPROM_SUNXI_SID)	+= sunxi_sid.o
> >>  obj-$(CONFIG_EEPROM_DIGSY_MTC_CFG) += digsy_mtc_eeprom.o
> >>diff --git a/drivers/misc/eeprom/sunxi_sid.c b/drivers/misc/eeprom/sunxi_sid.c
> >>new file mode 100644
> >>index 0000000..953f137
> >>--- /dev/null
> >>+++ b/drivers/misc/eeprom/sunxi_sid.c
> >>@@ -0,0 +1,218 @@
> >>+/*
> >>+ * Copyright (c) 2013 Oliver Schinagl
> >>+ * http://www.linux-sunxi.org
> >>+ *
> >>+ * Oliver Schinagl <oliver@...inagl.nl>
> >>+ *
> >>+ * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> >>+ * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
> >>+ * the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
> >>+ * (at your option) any later version.
> >>+ *
> >>+ * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
> >>+ * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
> >>+ * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
> >>+ * GNU General Public License for more details.
> >>+ *
> >>+ * This driver exposes the Allwinner security ID, a 128 bit eeprom, in chunks
> >>+ * of 8 bytes.
> >
> >16 bytes or 8 bits? because 8 bytes != 128 bits.
> fixed, it was late when I wrote that :( It is indeed 8 bits, e.g.
> byte sized chunks.
> 
> >
> >>+ */
> >>+
> >>+#include <linux/compiler.h>
> >>+#include <linux/device.h>
> >>+#include <linux/errno.h>
> >>+#include <linux/export.h>
> >>+#include <linux/fs.h>
> >>+#include <linux/init.h>
> >>+#include <linux/io.h>
> >>+#include <linux/kobject.h>
> >>+#include <linux/module.h>
> >>+#include <linux/of_address.h>
> >>+#include <linux/platform_device.h>
> >>+#include <linux/stat.h>
> >>+#include <linux/sysfs.h>
> >>+#include <linux/types.h>
> >>+
> >>+
> >>+#define DRV_NAME "sunxi-sid"
> >>+#define DRV_VERSION "1.0"
> >>+
> >>+/* Register offsets */
> >>+#define SUNXI_SID_KEY0 0x00
> >>+#define SUNXI_SID_KEY1 0x04
> >>+#define SUNXI_SID_KEY2 0x08
> >>+#define SUNXI_SID_KEY3 0x0c
> >>+
> >>+/* There are 4 32-bit keys */
> >>+#define SUNXI_SID_KEYS 4
> >>+/* and 4 32-bit keys per 32-bit key */
> >
> >The comment is wrong here.
> Same as above, corrected.
> 
> >
> >>+#define SUNXI_SID_SIZE (SUNXI_SID_KEYS * 4)
> >>+
> >>+#if (SUNXI_SID_SIZE > PAGE_SIZE)
> >>+#error "SUNXI_SID_SIZE is larger then the target's PAGE_SIZE, ENOMEM."
> >>+#endif
> >
> >Hmmmm, I don't follow you here, what's the relation between your driver
> >and PAGE_SIZE?
> Nothing, I thought there was, but isn't. removed.
> >
> >>+
> >>+static u8 keys_lut[] = {
> >>+	SUNXI_SID_KEY0,
> >>+	SUNXI_SID_KEY1,
> >>+	SUNXI_SID_KEY2,
> >>+	SUNXI_SID_KEY3,
> >>+};
> >>+
> >>+struct sid_priv {
> >>+	void __iomem *sid_base;
> >>+};
> >>+
> >>+struct sid_priv *p;
> >
> >What's the point of having a structure here? And why putting a global
> >value, !static, with a generic name, while you could have an
> >instance-specific one?
> Forgot the static keyword, and the struct kept on shrinking until
> only the base address was left. I guess memory wise it shouldn't
> make a difference, but the compiler also doesn't agree, so gone it
> is :)
> >
> >struct file has a private_data field, use it.
> But since we don't 'open' it, we can't use that, as we talked on IRC.

Then, use the passed kobject to retrieve its parent device structure,
and from there, get the drvdata to get back on your feet.

Actually, you already seem to do that and I overlooked that part in my
previous review.

So just use the priv structure you have defined in your read function
and that is useless right now.

> >
> >>+
> >>+
> >>+/* We read the entire key, using a look up table. Returned is only the
> >>+ * requested byte. This is of course slower then it could be and uses 4 times
> >>+ * more reads as needed but keeps code a little simpler.
> >>+ */
> >>+u8 sunxi_sid_read_byte(const int key)
> >>+{
> >>+	u32 sid_key;
> >>+	u8 ret;
> >>+
> >>+	ret = 0;
> >>+	if (likely((key <= SUNXI_SID_SIZE))) {
> >>+		sid_key = ioread32(p->sid_base + keys_lut[key >> 2]);
> >>+		switch (key % 4) {
> >>+		case 0:
> >>+			ret = (sid_key >> 24) & 0xff;
> >>+			break;
> >>+		case 1:
> >>+			ret = (sid_key >> 16) & 0xff;
> >>+			break;
> >>+		case 2:
> >>+			ret = (sid_key >> 8) & 0xff;
> >>+			break;
> >>+		case 3:
> >>+			ret = sid_key & 0xff;
> >>+			break;
> >>+		}
> >>+	}
> >
> >Come on, you can do better. This lookup table is useless.
> I didn't want to depend on the fixed layout of memory, but consider
> it removed.
> >
> >Also, why the first key is the one with the MSBs?
> >I'd expect that the key 0 is the one holding the LSBs.
> Strangely enough, they have swapped the MSB and LSB bytes. I double
> checked it with u-boot and yep, swapped. Though in the end, if we
> write stuff there and we read stuff from there, order doesn't
> matter? So what do we prefer. Have it so that it makes sense and
> ignore how u-boot reads it, or correct it and be consistent?

Which u-boot are you talking about?
I'd really prefer to have a sane and logical behaviour rather than a
broken one, even though it used to be like that in the
Allwinner-provided kernel.

> >
> >>+
> >>+	return ret;
> >>+}
> >>+
> >>+static ssize_t sid_read(struct file *fd, struct kobject *kobj,
> >>+			struct bin_attribute *attr, char *buf,
> >>+			loff_t pos, size_t size)
> >>+{
> >>+	ssize_t ret;
> >>+	struct device *dev;
> >>+	struct sid_priv *priv;
> >>+	int i;
> >>+
> >>+	ret = -EPERM;
> >>+	dev = kobj_to_dev(kobj);
> >>+	priv = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> >>+
> >>+	if ((likely(size > 0)) && ((size + pos) <= SUNXI_SID_SIZE)) {
> >>+		for (i = 0; i < size; i++) {
> >>+			buf[i] = sunxi_sid_read_byte(pos + i);
> >>+		}
> >>+		if (i < PAGE_SIZE) {
> >>+			buf[i] = '\0';
> >>+			ret = (ssize_t)size;
> >>+		} else {
> >>+			ret = -ENOMEM;
> >>+		}
> >
> >Hmmmm, what? Why returning \0 here? It's not a string, it's binary data.
> >What's the relation with PAGE_SIZE again?
> I thought that buf is at most PAGE_SIZE large [1] "sysfs allocates a
> buffer of size (PAGE_SIZE) and passes it to the method."

And you already check the size passed.

> >
> >Just return the number of bytes read, that's it.
> Yes, had forgotten that this was of course the binary read function
> and not the text version. So yeah, in the binary case, gone.
> >
> >>+	} else {
> >>+		buf[0] = '\0';
> >>+		ret = 0;
> >>+	}
> >>+
> >>+	return ret;
> >>+}
> >>+
> >>+static struct of_device_id sid_of_match[] = {
> >>+	{
> >>+		.compatible = "allwinner,sun4i-sid",
> >>+	},
> >>+	{/* sentinel */}
> >>+};
> >>+MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, sid_of_match);
> >>+
> >>+static struct bin_attribute sid_bin_attr = {
> >>+	.attr = {
> >>+		.name = "key",
> >>+		.mode = S_IRUGO,
> >>+	},
> >>+	.size = SUNXI_SID_SIZE,
> >>+	.read = sid_read,
> >>+};
> >>+
> >>+static int sid_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >>+{
> >>+	struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
> >>+	struct sid_priv *priv;
> >>+
> >>+	priv = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> >>+	device_remove_bin_file(dev, &sid_bin_attr);
> >>+	iounmap(priv->sid_base);
> >>+	devm_kfree(dev, priv);
> >>+	return 0;
> >>+}
> >>+
> >>+static int __init sid_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >>+{
> >>+	int ret;
> >>+	struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
> >>+	struct sid_priv *priv;
> >>+
> >>+	priv = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*priv), GFP_KERNEL);
> >>+	p = priv;
> >>+
> >>+	dev_set_drvdata(dev, priv);
> >>+
> >>+	if (!priv) {
> >>+		dev_err(dev, "Unable to allocate device private data\n");
> >>+		ret = -ENOMEM;
> >>+		goto exit;
> >>+	}
> >
> >Isn't it a bit weird to check for the memory allocation after using the
> Yes, more 'oops'. Re-arranged.
> >variable. Also, you don't really need the dev_err, since if the kernel
> >fails to allocate some memory, it will tell you anyway.
> I had it there mostly for consistency, the other 2 did the same
> check. Initially I had 5 functions here, but you corrected me on
> that :)
> 
> >
> >>+	priv->sid_base = of_iomap(dev->of_node, 0);
> >>+	if (!priv->sid_base) {
> >>+		dev_err(dev, "Unable to map memory region\n");
> >>+		ret = -ENOMEM;
> >>+		goto exit_free;
> >>+	}
> >>+
> >>+	ret = device_create_bin_file(dev, &sid_bin_attr);
> >>+	if (ret) {
> >>+		dev_err(dev, "Unable to create sysfs bin entry\n");
> >>+		goto exit_unmap;
> >>+	}
> >
> >Hmmm, maybe it's not worth all these gotos just for an iounmap, I'd
> >probably return right away, but that's your call.
> I saw a lot of drivers do the goto: dance in init/probe/exit/remove
> functions, I don't think the overhead here would be so bad?

It's not really that it's bad, but using return directly would take less
code overall, but that's not a big deal, if you prefer to keep it that
way, I'm fine with it.

> >
> >>+	dev_info(dev, "Sunxi security ID driver loaded successfully.\n");
> >>+
> >>+	return 0;
> >>+
> >>+
> >>+exit_unmap:
> >>+	iounmap(priv->sid_base);
> >>+exit_free:
> >>+	devm_kfree(dev, priv);
> >>+exit:
> >>+	return ret;
> >>+}
> >>+
> >>+static struct platform_driver sid_driver = {
> >>+	.probe = sid_probe,
> >>+	.remove = sid_remove,
> >>+	.driver = {
> >>+		.name = DRV_NAME,
> >>+		.owner = THIS_MODULE,
> >>+		.of_match_table = sid_of_match,
> >>+	},
> >>+};
> >>+module_platform_driver(sid_driver);
> >>+
> >>+
> >>+MODULE_AUTHOR("Oliver Schinagl <oliver@...inagl.nl>");
> >>+MODULE_DESCRIPTION("Allwinner sunxi security id driver");
> >>+MODULE_VERSION(DRV_VERSION);
> >>+MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
> >>
> >
> >Thanks for this driver!
> >Maxime
> >
> You are welcome! :D While awaiting more feedback, i've pushed the
> current version to my github [2].
> 
> Oliver
> 
> [0] https://github.com/amery/linux-allwinner/blob/lichee-3.3/sun7i-dev/arch/arm/mach-sun7i/security_id.c#L91
> [1] https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/filesystems/sysfs.txt
> [2] https://github.com/oliv3r/linux/blob/wip/sunxi-security-id/drivers/misc/eeprom/sunxi_sid.c

-- 
Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists